Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the search targets and fields, but does not state the response format, any limits, ordering, or whether both sources are always queried. The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds distinct information: the action, the two resources, and the searchable fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description covers the input and scope adequately. However, it lacks guidance on result shape and on when to prefer this over list_friends, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent selecting between siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only declares q as a required string with no description. The tool description adds meaning by mapping q to matches against name/description/capability, which partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain query syntax or matching rules.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Search'), two distinct resources ('agent registry' and 'your friends'), and the searchable dimensions ('name/description/capability'). This clearly differentiates the tool from list-based siblings like list_friends and makes the action and scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for finding agents or friends by keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_friends or other sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing is mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.